 That concludes that item of business. Before moving on to the next item of business, can I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus? The next item of business is a debate on motion 1512 in the name of Michael Matheson on legislative consent to the environment bill. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Cabinet Secretary Michael Matheson up to seven minutes please and move the motion. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and can I take this opportunity to thank members of the net zero energy and transport committee and also for the DPLR committee in their consideration of this issue and the supplementary LCM on the UK environment bill and for their report on this matter. It may be helpful if I recap briefly the purpose of the UK environment bill, which includes within it provisions across a range of environmental regimes. A number of regulatory provisions were designed from the outset to extend to devolve competence in Scotland. Those provisions cover aspects of environmental regulation in areas such as water, air quality, chemicals and waste and in resources. Those measures were prepared and subsequently amended in a manner that adequately respects the legislative competence of this Parliament in those specific environmental areas. This Parliament gave consent to those measures in November last year after giving due consideration and debate on the issues in hand. However, two recent amendments to the bill fundamentally undermine the powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the environment and the area of policy that is of devolved responsibility. The first such amendment was presented during the House of Commons stage. That introduced a new due diligence regime for forest risk commodities in commercial activities, which came about in response to the findings of the global resource initiative. Although we agree with the need to reduce the overseas impact of our consumption, that fundamentally pertains to devolved law, which should be developed on a devolved basis by the Scottish Government and answerable to this Parliament. That has clearly not occurred in this case. The second such amendment was passed by the House of Lords, no less, is a further example of the sustained attack that we have saw from the UK Government on a devolved settlement. In the continuity act, we legislated for a set of guiding principles on the environment, which ministers must have regard to when making policy. Those include when UK ministers exercise their functions in reserved matters. It is our legitimate expectation that all ministers should have regard to those principles when operating in Scotland. That amendment must be resisted as it seeks to supply the Scottish environmental principles as agreed by this Parliament. UK ministers shall apply the UK environmental principles when making policy affecting Scotland in reserved areas. That is a clear departure from what was previously agreed with the UK Government in the drafting of the bill. The Scottish Government believes that the duty in the continuity act to have regard to our guiding principles on the environment should apply in all circumstances where those actions impact on Scotland, whether that is a reserved area or not. Despite our protestations from Scottish ministers to the UK Government, they have refused to accept that those matters are within devolved competence. That dismissive attitude towards the powers of this Parliament has wide potential consequences for environmental policy in Scotland. It is this Parliament that is responsible for environmental policy in Scotland. The Scottish Government is responsible for ensuring that we have effective policies to achieve the high environmental standards that we seek. That is particularly pertinent as we are dragged out of the EU against our will. The Government, with colleagues in the Scottish Green Party, has a shared commitment to make real progress in restoring our natural environment, transforming our use of resources and addressing remaining challenges in environmental quality. We have stretching targets for woodland creation and peatland restoration, contributing to our net zero target. There will be an ambitious new biodiversity strategy, a circular economy bill and a significant natural environment bill, including statutory targets on natural nature restoration. There are also ambitious plans for land use transformation and our marine environment. This Parliament will rightly hold the Government to account for achieving those ambitions and the people will hold us to account for the quality of our natural environment. That is all too relevant to this debate and this motion because if the UK Government and Parliament continue to intrude upon our Parliament's powers in this area, it will make it harder and harder to achieve our goals and ambitions for the people of Scotland. Those measures are part of a pattern with the UK Internal Market Act, a particular concern for our ability to make environmental policy in the future. We simply cannot accept law being made in the UK Parliament in areas within the legislative conference of the Scottish Parliament without that being reflected in the design of the provisions and in recognising the legislative competence of this Parliament in these matters. That is an important issue that could have wide-ranging implications for environmental policy in the weeks, months and years ahead. I therefore move the motion in my name. I now call on Donald Cameron to speak to and move amendment 1512.1. Up to six minutes, please, Mr Cameron. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I move the amendment in my name and also refer to my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates? I have to say that this has to be one of the most spurious debates about legislative consent led by the Scottish Government to date. Let's remind ourselves of a few salient facts. The Scottish Parliament, at the behest of the SNP Government, has already given consent to the UK Government's environmental bill, the entire bill in November last year. That is a bill that aims to tackle the biggest environmental issues facing the UK in the years ahead. It provides a legal framework for environmental governance. Now the UK is outside the EU and it makes provision for specific improvement of the environment. Most of the bill applies in England alone, but there are some provisions that apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, there are UK-wide provisions that create delegated powers. There are also shared powers, meaning that the regulations can be made for Scotland either by ministers here, acting alone or by the UK ministers if Scottish ministers consent. There are also, and this is important, a number of areas in the bill that extend to Scotland by virtue of their being reserved areas. As I said, Parliament passed an LCM for the bill last year, but we now have the absurd scenario where, purely to manufacture another completely artificial row with the UK Government, the SNP takes issue with two amendments that are argued to trespass on devolved competence. Amendments that are designed to protect international rainforests and fill a governance gap on environmental policy. Amendments that, in relation to the first one, the cabinet secretary himself has just said he agrees with, he said in committee that it is broadly in line with the Scottish Government policy. In fact, it is so broadly in line with the Scottish Government policy that, this afternoon, the Scottish Government is challenging it. It is absurd, Deputy Presiding Officer. We are through the looking glass. Let us look at each of those amendments in turn, the rainforest amendment, a provision designed to protect rainforests around the world, an amendment that allows UK ministers to make regulations placing an obligation on businesses to ensure that they do not import materials that have been produced on cleared rainforest land. I am afraid that I have a lot to get through and I will not. The provision makes it illegal for businesses within scope to use, either in production or trade within the UK, forest risk commodities that have not been produced in accordance with relevant laws in the country where they are grown. It is patently clear that the use of forest risk commodities in the way that it appears in the environment bill is a reserved matter. It does not pertain to devolve law. The measures in question fall within the scope of the reservation to the UK within the 1998 Scotland Act for the Creation, Operation, Regulation and Dissolution of Types of Business Association. The obligations imposed by the bill on regulated persons are requirements of a formal regulatory nature and regulated persons are defined as a type of business association. What that amounts to is the regulation of a business association explicitly for the purpose of the reservation in the Scotland Act. It is illogical to argue that it is for environmental purposes generally and that somehow converts it into a devolved matter. As a matter of law and statutory language, the amendment is about regulation of business entities appearance in simple and it is unarguable from a legal and constitutional standpoint that this somehow intrudes on devolved competence. It is a sensible worthwhile provision broadly in line with the Scottish Government policy but not a provision that the Scottish Government are prepared to accept today. Let's look at the second amendment. This amendment will have the effect that where UK Government ministers are making policy relating to reserved matters, the minister must have due regard to the policy statement of environmental principles within the UK bill relating to reserved matters. One might have thought it uncontroversial that the UK Government when acting in matters solely within its own competence relating to reserved matters might just might be entitled to have regard to a UK Government policy statement, not just in accordance with the devolution settlement but categorically respecting and reinforcing that settlement. As I have already said, the environmental bill has already been consented to by this Parliament and contains a number of provisions that extend to Scotland by virtue of being reserved there. Let me give one example. The Office of Environmental Protection, whose remit in Scotland is likely to be fairly limited, triggered whenever the UK Government is exercising reserved functions in Scotland because, of course, there is a Scottish body to do the equivalent. The Scottish Government had no objection to the OEP exercising reserved functions in Scotland, no issue with that last year when it came to consenting to the bill, but they do somehow take issue with a provision that allows UK Government ministers, when making policy relating to reserved matters in Scotland, to have regard to their own policy statement of environmental principles, to argue that there is tramples on devolution, that this infringes somehow on devolve competence, is, I am afraid to say, ridiculous, but, of course, nothing is too ridiculous for this Government when trying to pick a fight. Can I close by pointing to the comments of Kevin Pringle writing in The Sunday Times this weekend, the former director of communications for the SNP, someone I respect and admire despite being at different ends of the constitutional spectrum? He argued that for the SNP there are political advantages in wanting improved relations with the UK administration. He wrote this. He says that as we begin the long recovery from the pandemic in our economy and public services, there must be a case for the Governments at Holyroon and Westminster having a more co-operative attitude than we have been accustomed to, where it makes sense, he said. Just like in the current debate, there is no legal constitutional or political reason to object to these amendments. Frankly, if this Government spent less time on their attempts at stoke division and more time on fighting climate change, we might be able to leave the environment in a better state than when we found it. Thank you. I now call on Monica Lennon to speak to and move amendment 1512.2. Up to five minutes, please, Ms Lennon. It's normally customary to say, I'm pleased to be opening the debate. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am, but I feel quite frustrated. As a member of the committee, I've been following this closely. I have to put in record my thanks to the clerks of the net zero committee, but also delegated powers, colleagues and spies who have been working hard. I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary for his time at committee, but here we are, and I'm not sure we're any further forward. The situation that we find ourselves in today, in part, reflects the collective failure of Scotland's two Governments to work together in the interests of Scottish people. The impact of Brexit on the UK's constitutional framework has been huge, and it demands that we approach more areas on a common UK basis. It is in our interests and the climate's best interests for the UK and Scottish Governments to start to build a stronger and more productive relationship to make this possible. The current governance structures are not fit for purpose. To date, the Tory's approach to Brexit has been a shambles, and they have sought to undermine the Scottish Parliament on a number of occasions. However, at the same time, it has not been helpful when we have seen the SNP engage in megaphone diplomacy and sometimes resort to banging on about independence rather than seeking to find consensus where we need it. I hope that that explains why we feel frustrated because, in those benches, we have a proud record of standing up for our devolved powers, and we will continue to do so. It is important that I emphasise that we share the Scottish Government's opposition to the Tory's contesting Scottish Parliament legislation in the way that it has. My question to the cabinet secretary would be if the Scottish Government feels as strong as it does, why was it a challenge not taken to the Supreme Court to get absolute clarity on the matter? We have a question. We have sought since February of this year repeatedly to try to get these matters resolved with the UK Government. The last letter that went to the UK Government in this matter back in June from my colleague Mary McCallum has still not even been responded to by the UK Government, and we share the same frustrations as the Welsh Government in this very matter, who again refused legislative consent on the matter because of the way in which the UK Government were going forward with this on areas of devolved competence in environmental policy, which is what we have sought to try to resolve with them, but they have steadfastly refused to engage in that process. I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that update. Clearly, it is not acceptable for correspondence from Scottish ministers to be ignored by UK ministers, so hopefully that can be resolved after today. However, it does appear that there has been some differences in how the Welsh Government has interacted. I was wondering if perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the chamber could give some insight into that, because I think that that is another point of frustration. In those benches, of course, we do not have access to the legal advice that either Government is getting, so we need to have more transparency on that. I think that both the cabinet secretary and Donald Cameron have spoken well and fairly about the fact that there is lots of agreement about what the bill is trying to achieve. There is very little policy difference. I can speak to the issue about the amendments on forage risk commodities and deforestation. It was Alice Lucas writing for the Fair Trade Foundation, who reminded us that poverty and deforestation fuel each other in a negative cycle, and that is wreaking havoc on the planet and its people. Today, many of us are wearing challenge poverty week badges. It would be good to be using our time to debate and discuss climate justice and to look at the impact of poverty, but here we are instead. We are not quite sure how we have reached that point, but it looks to us that there should have been much earlier engagement and discussion between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It is not going to be for us in those benches to solve that, but we would urge people to work more closely together. In conclusion, to make real progress in tackling the climate and nature emergencies, we need both Governments to work together to deliver strong environmental protections, and I move the amendments in my name. I will be brief and share the frustrations outlined by Monica Lennon. I am grateful to Donald Cameron for the forensic way in characteristic form that he set out many of the issues at play here. I do not think that this debate paints this Parliament in a particularly good light. It speaks to an almost dysfunctional relationship between Scotland's two Governments. Unlike Monica Lennon, from what I can tell, there seems little substantive disagreement between both Governments regarding the actual policies contained within the UK Environment Bill, which the Parliament consented in November last year. The net zero committee's report confirms that there are only, quote, small drafting differences between the proposed approaches for incorporating the guiding principles. The policy differences, according to the committee, quote, appear very minor and yet somehow the Scottish Government has found time to platform what can only be described as a constitutional spat. Despite the fact that over recent weeks we have seen important debates on important subjects squeezed for time or indeed squeezed out altogether, in that context this debate hardly feels like the most productive use of our time. When this Parliament gave its consent to the UK Environment Bill in November last year, I spoke in that debate and at that time I warned that the climate does not care about the constitution. A year on and that warning appears just as relevant even as the climate emergency has become even more urgent. Scottish Liberal Democrats are committed to doing everything possible to minimise the damaging legacy of Brexit, especially in the area of environment policy. Sadly, by the end of this debate, we will be no further forward in achieving that mission and we will be supporting the amendment in Monica Lennon's name this evening. We will now move straight to winding up statements and I call firstly Alex Rowley for Labour up to four minutes please, Ms Rowley. Thank you. I have to ask myself, Presiding Officer, is this debate today the best use of parliamentary time? We are taking part in this debate called the Scottish Government, called by the Scottish Government, because of two amendments the Scottish Government claim fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. Two amendments to a bill that this Parliament has already given legislative consent to. A debate is now taking place because there is a dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments in respect of both amendments. The UK Government does not consider that the amendments fall within devolved competencies and, as such, has not sought consent from the Scottish Parliament. It is the view of the Scottish Government that the two amendments do fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, so that is the background. I know that the net zero energy and transport committee in their report on the smartRCED and I quote, this being ultimately a legal dispute on the dividing lines between devolved and reserved competencies, the committee is in no position to adjudicate authoratively. I have to say why, given the views of the committee, the Scottish Government has decided to use valuable time of this chamber to debate this matter, I am not sure, other than they are playing the politics of grievance. It is disappointing to see that the UK and Scottish Governments have failed to engage in constructive dialogue on the environmental protections and regulations. It is unacceptable that a result of this failure is the Scottish Parliament's time being spent on further legal and constitutional wranglin, even when there is very little policy difference between the ambitions of the two Governments. We are in the midst of an extreme climate emergency, one that is a direct threat to ours and our children's future, yet here we are in Parliament watching the Scottish and UK Governments have a disagreement about technicalities in a bill rather than recognise that so much more needs to be done by politicians to tackle the climate threat for our children's future. Just this weekend, at the official opening of the Parliament, Her Majesty the Queen urged all of us in this chamber to tackle climate change, saying that there is a key role for the Scottish Parliament, as with all Parliaments, to help create a better, healthier future for all and to engage with the people they represent, especially our young people. The debate today does not help to create a better, healthier future for us all, and I certainly do not think that it helps us to engage with our country's young people. Any young person watching this would surely ask why are they not dedicating more time to actually trying to solve some of the biggest problems we are facing collectively as humanity, rather than spending their time on legal and constitutional wranglin. To tackle climate and nature emergencies, countries across the world need to come together and unite around common goals, and the countries of the UK are no exception to this. If we cannot come together and work together across the UK on the issue of climate, then what message do we send to the rest of the world? I would want to make clear and plea to this chamber that we all have to come here and work together to tackle the climate threat that is the greatest threat to the future of our children and our grandchildren. It is over 100 years since Rutherford split the atom, and I would venture that his achievement was far less challenging than the SNP managing to split the finest of hares and create quite possibly the innanest constitutional debate that it could come up with. A week where it has been announced that the bill to bring every home in one city in Scotland up to just a grade C for energy efficiency could be close to £10 billion, an issue with a huge impact on our net zero target, the Scottish Government chose to bring a debate to the chamber and create grievance. I understand the SNP's need to avoid discussing anything for which they actually have responsibility, because that would lay bare the total incompetence of this Government in using or not using the significant powers that they have. Why are the Government not bringing health debates to the chamber, record A&E waiting times or staff shortages or an ambulance waiting time crisis? What about education, which is apparently the SNP priority, the stubborn attainment gap, the slide down international league tables, the ferry crisis that sees two partially finished ferries rusting in a Government-owned yard, a yard that cannot even get on a Government tender list, bring the climate emergency to this chamber and let's get on with it, things that actually matter to the people of Scotland. Of course, we know that the Scottish Government leaves such matters to the opposition parties to raise. In bringing this debate to the chamber, it tells us everything we need to know about the direction of travel of this SNP Government, it matters not the substance of the debate, it does not matter that my colleague Donald Cameron, an advocate no less, has systematically dismantled any legal position that the SNP have tried to manufacture and has exposed them for what they are. Not a party of Government, but a protest party, a party of grievance. They have become a parody of themselves and, in doing so, they devalue the Scottish Parliament in what it is here to do, and that is to serve the people of Scotland. It does not even matter that the LCM that we are discussing was reported on by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and the Delicate Powers and Law Reform Committee in 2020, that a legislative consent motion was voted on and agreed by the Scottish Parliament in November 2020. It will not even matter that the SNP Green coalition is challenging a provision designed to protect rainforests around the world. Let that one sink in, Deputy Presiding Officer, because let's be honest, the Government motion will pass this afternoon and they will achieve their objective of being able to serve the story to the media that that Parliament agrees that the UK Parliament on a power grab. Job done. With that motion, the SNP Green coalition has finally given up any pretence of governing for the people of Scotland. This debate is about creating constitutional grievance, finding ways to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK and highlights the SNP's absolute unwillingness to negotiate and then blame somebody else. I'm in no doubt, Presiding Officer, that following this debate that people of Scotland will now, as one, rise up and what? Politics sometimes has to be about compromise, accepting something isn't perfect but it isn't the end of the world. The SNP chose not to compromise or collaborate with the UK Government because why would they choose to work constructively to solve any problem when every unresolved problem is another opportunity to paint themselves as being hard done by? Why go to all the effort of getting things sorted and done when you can sit back and blame somebody else for their failure? This is 14 minutes in my life that I will never get back. What an absolute waste of parliamentary time, shame on the sham of a Government, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whistle. I now call on the Minister, Mary McCallan, to wind up for the Scottish Government around five minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland rejected Brexit and we deeply regret that it's been forced upon us during a global pandemic. Despite that, the Scottish Government has always worked to make the best of a bad situation for Scotland. Despite our differences, we are of course prepared to co-operate with the UK Government. We have done so on this bill. We have a shared interest in working to reduce our global environmental impact and have, as I said, consented to the aspects of this bill. I have to connect Donald Cameron, who appeared to suggest that we'd consented to it all. That can't reconcile with what we're discussing today, so I think that's wrong. Indeed, given the nature of forest risk commodities, provisions, a joint approach may have been achievable in this case. Had the UK respected this Parliament's legislative competence, we could have met a resolution, but unfortunately that has not been the case. If this Parliament doesn't act, if we don't stand against attempts to undermine the democratic will, the UK Government will continue to constrain the competence of Scotland's Parliament, be it the commons seeking to undermine the application of Scotland's environmental principles, which were carefully curated by the Government and supported by this Parliament, or the House of Lords seeking to legislate in forestry matters over the head of this Government and Parliament, it must be resisted. Be it by stealth, as in this case, or overtly, as in the Insidious Internal Market Act, it must be resisted. It is this Parliament that is accountable to the people of Scotland, and we must be free to act in devolved matters as the people of Scotland elected us to do. We are not alone in our concerns. As the cabinet secretary pointed out, the Welsh Government is equally troubled by the UK's creep into devolved power. I note Monica Lennon's amendment and her disappointment that matters have not been resolved. I share that disappointment, but I think that the difference between Monica Lennon, the Labour Party and this Government is that we are not prepared to accept perpetual disappointment within the UK constitutional system. I am sure that the minister will recognise that she is in a position where she can do something, but I heard from your colleague the cabinet secretary that you wrote a letter in June a month after the committee office, which is great to hear. Is that all you are doing right now and sitting back? What else are you doing to try and get a response from ministers? We regularly engage with the UK Government, and I can assure the member that we try repeatedly to get action on those matters. No, not one letter and repeated meetings, but thanks for the intervention. The Scottish Government has made clear our commitment to maintain or exceed environmental standards following EU exit. It is very important to note that the UK Government has not made an equivalent commitment. It appears from Donald Cameron's contribution that he would be content for us to pass responsibility to the UK Government for any and all aspects of responsibility. Is that a surprise, given that, after all, his party is the architect of the internal market act, which the Parliament rejected and which will severely constrain the ability of the Parliament to deliver progress in the environment in Scotland? The UK Government is playing fast and loose with the purpose test and trampling arbitrarily on the legislative competence of this Parliament. Therefore, it is imperative that we take every opportunity to urge the UK Government to reconsider and to reframe. I am sorry that members of this chamber are so inconvenienced by taking 40 minutes out of their afternoons to defend the powers of this Parliament that the people of Scotland elected them to serve in. The First Minister's letter to the Prime Minister of 14 May 2021 made clear that resolving issues of encroachment into devolve competence is an important test for the UK Government. Resolving those issues would demonstrate their willingness to step back from an approach that is increasingly appearing designed to unlawfully take power and decision making from this Parliament. It is high time that the UK Government started listening to those concerns and I would ask members to support that motion to preserve the environmental powers of this Parliament and to respect the will of the Scottish people, which, as I say, they were elected to represent in this chamber. Thank you.